Implicit homophobic
argument structure: Equalmarriage discourse in the
Moral Maze
Isabelle van der Bom, Laura Coffey-Glover, Lucy
Jones, Sara Mills, Laura L Paterson
Discourses of Marriage Research
Group.
Funding
Thanks are due to Sheffield Hallam University for
partial funding of the data collection for this
project and for travel expenses.
1. Introduction
Aims: to map out at a discourse level what implicit
homophobia consists of; to provide a linguistic,
discourse-level toolkit for identifying implicit
homophobia.
Explicit homophobia: like explicit sexism or
racism, is relatively easy to identify, though still
difficult to combat - `I hate gay people’.
Implicit homophobia: speakers hint at or
presuppose homophobic beliefs whilst also claiming
that they are not homophobic.
2. Discourses of Marriage Research
Group
The group is a sub-group of the Gender and
Language Reading group and meets in Sheffield,
Huddersfield and York.
Our aims are to raise awareness of homophobia
and to chart the discourses around same-sex
marriage.
Members of the DoM group
Isabelle van der Bom,
Sheffield University.
Lucy Jones,
Hull University
Members of the DoM group
Laura Paterson,
Laura Coffey-Glover
Liverpool University Sheffield Hallam University
3. Marriage Equality Debate in the
UK
• 2005 civil partnerships introduced
• 2012 government survey found that 53% of
British were in favour of same-sex marriage
• 2013: Marriage (Same Sex) Couples Bill passed
by House of Lords
• March 29th 2014: equal marriage
4. The Moral Maze
• The Moral Maze, a weekly current affairs debate
programme on BBC Radio 4, focused on same
sex marriage three times:
– The Moral Worth of Marriage (16th Feb 2011)
– Gay Marriage (14th March 2012)
– The Moral Virtue of Marriage (6th Feb 2013)
4. 1. The Moral Maze
• The format of the show relies on a recontextualisation of
the format of a UK Crown Court (where discourses from
one context colonise another)
–
–
–
–
–
Judge: Michael Buerk (Host)
Prosecution/Defence Barristers: Panel Members
Witnesses: Guest speakers (referred to as witnesses)
Jury: The listening audience
Defendant: The topic under consideration (Same-Sex
Marriage)
• This structure helps to give legitimacy, impartiality and
authority to the show.
• The issues under consideration are presented as part of
a legal (and not necessarily moral) framework
5. Language and homophobia
discourse
• Heteronormativity: an irrational fear of homosexuality;
poses heterosexuality as the norm and as natural `render all other forms of human sexual expression
pathological, deviant, invisible, unintelligible or written
out of existence’ (Yep, 2002: 167)
• Implicit homophobia: draws on heteronormativity, but
ensures speaker is positioned as not homophobic.
• Rather than focus on explicit linguistic markers, we
examine implicit homophobia at a discursive level
(Provencher 2010)
6. Argument structure
• The complex ways in which a text tries to persuade
the reader of a particular argument or position:
• ‘a social and rational activity of attempting to
justify or refute a certain claim, and aiming to
persuade an interlocutor (a reasonable critic) of
the acceptability (or unacceptability) of a claim’,
Fairclough & Fairclough (2012: 36) achieved
dialogically through the presentation of rational
and logical reasoning.
6. Analysis
In our analysis we focus on a combination of
linguistic and discursive elements to try to expose
the workings of implicit homophobia
– Recontextualisation
– Stance
– Imaginaries
– Metaphor
6.1 Recontextualisation
• Legal recontextualisation:
• Not only does the show draw on a legal setting and
framework, links to the conceptualisation of marriage
as a legal issue are also realised lexically
1. ‘It’s actually a right laid out in the 1989 Declaration
of Rights for the Child’ (MM2)
2. Collocation sets
'would you accept that [+proposition]',
'so, you do agree that [+proposition]', and
'can you confirm that [+proposition]',
6.1 Recontextualisation
• Scientific recontextualisation: the use of
scientific lexis to discuss the abstract social
concept of marriage.
1. Natural parents in a married household, MM2
2. It’s the condition which links generation of
children to their biological parents, MM2
• Marriage is consistently linked to procreation
6.2 Recontextualisation
• Religious recontextualisation: where religious
terminology and imagery are appropriated into
the discourse without overt reference to any
religious element of marriage:
1. I talk about marriage being there to sanctify a
relationship, MM1
2. Can I mention the word sacred union of two
people who come together in order to
procreate children? MM2
6.3 Stance taking
• A stance is an evaluation: a speakers takes ‘a
position with respect to the form or content of
one’s utterance’ (Jaffe 2009: 3).
• By considering how speakers take stances, we
can see how they build their arguments.
• Some people’s stances are unambiguous:
• Portillo: ‘I think that the extension to gays…is
unnecessary’, MM1
6.3.1 Marriage is…
• The use of ‘marriage+is’ enables speakers to align
themselves with heterosexual marriage rather than
same-sex marriage
1. marriage is about difference (Landrum, MM1)
2. marriage is the way of uniting man and woman to
have their own children (James, MM2)
• Those opposing same-sex marriage in this way
tend not to begin their utterances with ‘I think
that...’, but instead offer repeated definitions which
make their stance clear
6.3.2 Stance and power
• There is a power difference between panellists and
witnesses, supported by the legalised setting
• The panellists tactically attribute a stance to a
witness, rather than simply asking their opinion
1. Hunt argues that marriage is a good thing
2. Portillo claims ‘you are saying that the opposites of
these things, that non-commitment, sex without
love and promiscuous sex are presumably a bad
thing’ (MM1)
3. Hunt has to interrupt her argument to address this
attributed stance
6.4. Imaginaries
• Imaginaries are discursive structures that represent
hypothetical situations or possible worlds (Fairclough and
Fairclough 2012: 103).
• Used to construct undesirable versions of society:
• David Landrum: "[Marriage] would be redefined and we
don’t know what that would mean socially, but my guess
would be it would open up a whole can of worms legally
and culturally as to the effect of that in education in how we
erm teach our children, and how we view family as well
would be, changed" (MM1).
• Imaginary signalled by modal verbs and 'can of worms'
metaphor
• 'Can of worms' metaphor part of a metaphor complex (Lakoff
and Johnson 1980: 97) of 'danger metaphors' including a
slippery slope metaphor:
• Clifford Longley: "We were talking just now about the
slippery slope argument erm haven’t we just been watching
a dramatic demonstration of the truth proof of the slippery
slope argument in 2004 2005 2006 when the civil
partnership act was going through Parliament it was said
time and time again that this was it this is only this is this is
what was demanded there is no following consequential
demand for gay marriage" (MM1).
– ‘slippery slope’ refers to idea that granting a social group one
particular right will lead to further requests for reforms that will
become gradually more ‘unreasonable’.
– ‘demand’ usually collocates with words implying a lack of legal
right, such as unlawfully, kidnappers and ransom (Baker 2004:
101).
6.5. Metaphors
• Metaphor plays an important role in the
construction of imaginaries, but also perform
other functions:
• Personification of marriage highlights
perceived importance of marriage
• Used to construct arguments for maintaining
the (heteronormative) status quo e.g.
– Marriage needs 'protecting' (Philip Blond, MM2)
– Government's proposals 'trying to tinker' with
marriage (David Landrum, MM1)
DL [Marriage is] actually something that shouldn’t
be, touched by politics beyond it sort of being held
in custody, held in eh::
AM aspic
DL aspic by politics, very good, thank you.
(MM1)
• Marriage treated as an animate object
• Recontextualisation from legal discourse
7. Discussion
• Participants against same-sex marriage in the Moral
Maze broadcasts rely largely on heteronormative
discourses
• They position heterosexual marriage as morally, socially
and biologically (naturally) logical and important
• Same-sex marriage is positioned as oppositional to this
and, therefore, as fundamentally problematic.
• We have considered each of the elements of
argumentation structure individually, but they do
interact…
7.1. An example of discourse level
analysis: David Landrum
• Stance: Typically focuses on defining marriage as fundamentally about
gender complementarity
– He focuses on the biological advantages of male/female relationships
– He thus moves away from the religious argument
• Recontextualisation: He personifies marriage as a living organism:
– ‘The DNA of marriage will change if these proposals [succeed]’
• Metaphor: Using DNA as a metaphor, he implies that allowing same-sex
marriage would change the fundamental structure of marriage
– Suggesting a DNA structure alludes to the notion of scientific intervention
– He is presenting marriage as a fixed object which cannot and should not be
altered by humans by imbuing the concept of marriage with its own DNA
Imaginary:
There is no scope to suggest that a change of DNA
would be positive
– As well as arguing that marriage will change, he
goes on to suggest that ‘it would change all sorts of
definitions at the centre of our society’
– By constructing a negative future imaginary about
marriage (when including same-sex marriage), it is
‘further removed’ from the actual world and present
state of affairs, and therefore more difficult to
counteract
Metaphor
• This links to the ‘slippery slope’ metaphor,
where one negative imaginary would lead to
many more negative imaginaries
– There is no option, when employing this metaphor,
to argue for a positive outcome
– It is these kinds of negative stance constructions
that allow opponents in the Moral Maze to construct
future visions of same-sex marriage as dangerous
and immoral, and thus non-normative
• Through the use of recontextualised scientific
discourse, metaphor and the construction of an
imaginary world, Landrum’s stance-work
allows same-sex marriage to be presented as a
threat to society
• It clearly positions same-sex relationships as
other, and as inferior to opposite-sex ones.
• We therefore argue that stances such as this are
implicitly homophobic
8. Conclusions
• What we have discovered about implicit homophobia in
this context:
• Stances which position same-sex marriage as threatening,
unnatural or illogical allow an anti-same-sex marriage
discourse to be produced. Because the discourse is
recontextualised as scientific and legalistic, there is no
explicit homophobia.
• Those who are arguing for same-sex marriage are put in a
reactive position, having to argue against these `objective’
assertions, and thus always being on the backfoot.
• This homophobia thus has to be interpreted by the listener,
rather than simply asserted explicitly by the speaker.
8.1. Implications for analysis of
homophobia
• Need to analyse both explicit and implicit homophobia.
• We need to develop ways of challenging these ideas and also
discussing marriage in more productive ways. Need to take the
argument outside religious context and notions of `natural’ and
`traditional’.
• We need to talk about same-sex marriage in different terms: human
rights and freedom around issues of sexuality.
8. 2. How to counter implicit
homophobia
• Focus on discourse and linguistic level: implicit
homophobia is about an interplay between
contextual features and linguistic items.
• We need to focus on the way that homophobic
statements are made by speakers, who at the
same time position themselves as neutral,
logical and reasonable.
•
References
Baker, P and Ellece, S. 2011 Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Baker, P. 2004. 'Unnatural acts': discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debates on gay male law reform.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8/1, 88-106.
Baker, P. 2008. Sexed Texts. London: Equinox.
Baker, P. 2014. Using Corpora to Analyse Gender. London: Bloomsbury.
Baunach, D. M. 2011. Decomposing trends in attitudes toward gay marriage, 1988-2006. Social Science Quarterly, 92/2,
346-363.
Brickell, C. 2001 ‘Whose “special treatment”? Heterosexism and the problems with liberalism’. Sexualities 4 (2): 211-36.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burr, V. 1995. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
Burridge, J. 2004. ‘I am not homophobic but...’: disclaiming in discourse resisting repeal of Section 28. Sexualities, 7/3,
327–344.
Burton, D. 1982. Through glass darkly, through dark glasses. In Carter, R. (ed.) Language and Literature. London: Allen
and Unwin. pp.195-214.
Butler, J. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London: Routledge.
Cameron, D. 1997. Performing gender identity: young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In
Johnson, S and Meinhof, U. (eds). Language and Masculinity, Oxford: Blackwell.
Cameron, D. and Kulick, D. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carey, G. 2012. Marriage will ONLY remain the bedrock of society if it is between a man and a woman. Daily Mail, 19
February 2012. Available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2103513/Marriage-ONLY-remain-bedrocksociety-man-woman.html [Accessed 11 November 2013].
Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Coupland, J. and Coupland, N. 2009 ‘Attributing Stance in Discourses of Body Shape and Weight Loss’ in: Jaffe, A. (ed.) Stance:
Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 227-249.
Edwards, J. 2007. 'Marriage is sacred': The religious right’s argument against 'gay marriage' in Australia. Culture, Health
and Sexuality, 9/3: 247-261.
Fairclough, I. and Fairclough, N. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fry, S. 2013 `Out There’, BBC 2, October
van Gend, D. 2004 Re-entering the circle of life, gays, ex-gays, and marriage. Address to the National Marriage Forum, August
4th 2004, Parliament House, Canberra. Available at
http://www.marriage.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=15re_entering_the_circle_
of_life.htm [Accessed
13 December 2013].
Harrison, B. F. and Michelson, M. R. 2012. Not that there’s anything wrong with that: the effect of personalised appeals on
marriage equality campaigns. Political Behaviour, 34/2, 325-344.
HM Government. 2012. Equal Marriage: The Government’s Response. Available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/133262/consultationresponse_1_.pdf [Accessed 11 November 2013].
Holehouse, M. and M. Deacon. 2013. Godfrey Bloom ‘should resign’ after sluts jibe, says Nigel Farage. The Telegraph, 20
September 2013. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10323774/Godfrey-Bloom-shouldresign-after-sluts-jibe-says-Nigel-Farage.html [Accessed 21 January 2014].
Jaffe, A. 2009 ‘Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance’, in: Jaffe, A. (ed.) Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 3–28.
Jeffries, L. 2010. Critical Stylistics: The Power of English. London: Palgrave
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Land, V. and Kitzinger, C. 2007. Contesting same-sex marriage in talk-in-interaction. Feminism and Psychology, 17/2, 173183.
Leap, W. 2012. ‘Queer Linguistics, Sexuality and Discourse Analysis’ in Gee, J.P. and Handford, M. The Routledge Handbook of
Discourse Analysis. Routledge: London, pp. 558-571.
Leap, W. 2004. `Language and homophobic discourse,’ Paper presented at the Eleventh Washington, DC Lavender Languages and
Linguistics Conference February 2004, American University, Washington, DC.
Mills, Sara. 2008. Language and Sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morrish, E. 1997. Falling short of God’s ideal’: public discourse about lesbians and gays. In Livia, A. and Hall, K. (eds). Queerly
Phrased: Language, Gender and Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 335–345.
Morrish, E. 2010. Situating and resisting homophobic discourse: Response to Leap, Junge, Peterson, and Provencher. Gender
and Language, 4/2, 323-335.
Moscowitz, L. M. 2010. Gay marriage in television news: Voice and visual representation in the same-sex marriage debate.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 54/1, 24-39.
Motschenbacher, H. 2011. Taking Queer Linguistics further: Sociolinguistics and critical heteronormativity research.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 212, 149–179.
O’Brien, K. 2012. We cannot afford to indulge this madness. The Telegraph, 3 March 2012. Available at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9121424/We-cannot-afford-to-indulge-this-madness.html [Accessed 11
November 2013].
Pascoe, C.J. 2005. 'Dude, You’re a Fag': Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse. Sexualities, 8/3, 329-346.
Peterson, D.J. 2010. 'The basis for a free, just and stable society': Institutional homophobia and governance at the Family
Research Council. Gender and Language, 4/2, 257-286.
Provencher, D.M. 2010. 'I dislike politicians and homosexuals': Language and homophobia in France. Gender and Language,
4/2, 287-321.
The Moral Maze: Gay Marriage. 2012. BBC Radio 4. 14 March, 20:00. Broadcast available from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11.
The Moral Maze: The Moral Virtue of Marriage. 2013. BBC Radio 4. 6 February, 20:00. Broadcast available from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11.
The Moral Maze: The Moral Worth of Marriage. 2011. BBC Radio 4. 16 February, 20:00. Broadcast available from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11.
Tiersma, P.M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yep, G. A. 2002. From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6/3-4, 163-176.